Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species' DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmistakably confirmed that the regulatory DNA of humans is totally different from that of chimps, revealing no hint of common ancestry.

Biologist John F. McDonald, of the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Biology, and his team wrote that chimp and human genes are more than "98.5% identical," a commonly quoted statistic.1 Yet humans don't look or act 98.5 percent identical to chimps. Thus, something other than genes must be involved, and this has been overlooked in evolutionists' efforts to establish chimp-human ancestry. In 2005, molecular biologist and creation scientist Dan Criswell wrote:

However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction [less than four percent] of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology [similarity] frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded "indels," which are areas with zero sequence homology.2

"Indels" refer to insertions (in-) and deletions (-del) of genetic material, but they are simply DNA sequence differences.

Publishing in the open access journal Mobile DNA, the research team led by McDonald tested the hypothesis that the "substantial INDEL variation that exists between humans and chimpanzees may contribute significantly to the regulatory differences between the species."1 McDonald said in a Georgia Tech press release:

Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves.3

The team's analysis of indels confirmed exactly what Bible-believing biologists have been saying for years. The indels and other variously named non-gene DNA are not "junk DNA," and they are critical to the formation of each living creature.4 Biblical geneticist Jeff Tomkins wrote in 2009:

Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in "non-coding regions [including indels]," which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes.5

The argument that chimp-human DNA similarity is evidence of common ancestry is possible only by ignoring the 98 percent of DNA that is different!6 It is like arguing that an aspirin pill is identical to a cyanide pill because they are the same shape and color. When do the differences enter the conversation?

Regulatory DNAnot just genesis essential for each kind of organism, is almost entirely useful, and is different in humans than it is in chimps. How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It's impossible.7 Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.

Evolutionists say that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor six million years ago. Then, two million years ago, modern humans supposedly diverged from a (still unidentified) ape-like ancestor. The difference equals four million years. Further, 98 percent of the human genome's 2.9 billion DNA base pairs, roughly corresponding to its regulatory DNA, equals 2.8 billion base pairs. Therefore, evolution requires the belief that man emerged after 2.8 billion precisely placed DNA bases somehow appeared, and even more ape-specifying regulatory DNA disappeared, in only four million years, even though experiments have not found this kind of DNA appearance and disappearance in today's genomes.

The. Smartest guy I know looks like a cave man. Huge body, small head with sloped forehead. I would trust him with anything that needs figuring out. I often wonder, if scientists in the future would dig him up what they would think of humanity right now. Something like what some scientists think of old bones they have found already?

4
posted on 11/15/2011 7:52:19 AM PST
by vpintheak
(Democrats: Robbing humans of their dignity 1 law at a time)

“Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves.”

The headline makes no sense. If the actual genes that are expressed are 98% similar, that is very strong evidence of a close evolutionary relationship. The junk DNA doesnt code for anything so it is free to mutate without any negative consequences so of course it will have less similarity.

13
posted on 11/15/2011 8:33:07 AM PST
by Hacklehead
(The goal of political correctness is to hide the truth.)

Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor.

Is the author imposing a belief on those he's criticizing, or do evolutionary biologists actually argue that this is a "MUST HAVE" occurrence/conclustion, leaving nothing else as a possible explanation?

16
posted on 11/15/2011 8:39:20 AM PST
by MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)

Awesome tag line. It's kind of funny in that my dad retired as a MSGT in the Air Force but was in the Navy in WWII and retired before Vietnam got hot, I think he regretted that. Sadly, they don't seem to make men like that anymore, men that didn't complain (besides the normal military b*tching)and did their duty.

Being born and growing up in a military family definitely gave me a unique perspective.

After seeing what Marines go through in basic, I am in awe of any Marine. That's not to say the other services have it easy, they certainly don't, I do wish I could remember the jokes my dad used to say about the current basic for Air Force (he transferred from the Navy and went to AF and didn't have to go to basic. I guess being part of 3 different D days counts for something).

Is that photo from Star Trek TOS?

17
posted on 11/15/2011 8:49:24 AM PST
by Lx
(Do you like it, do you like it. Scott? I call it Mr. and Mrs. Tennerman chili.)

Yes, it has long been known that non-genetic DNA is not as highly conserved between species as genetic DNA.

Creationists conflate the 99% genetic DNA similarity and the 95% or so similarity between genomic DNA, knowing the woeful lack of education on average of their target audience - they are pretty confident the dupes of their disinformation will not catch on.

They also assume that any non-genetic DNA is “regulatory” and that is not at all true. A lot of it is just “junk” DNA - possibly previously of use, possibly of future use - but currently in the genomic “basement” boxed up in chromatin.

21
posted on 11/15/2011 9:14:34 AM PST
by allmendream
(Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)

“Thats the first thought that struck me. Those Georgia Tech scientists would probably be fuming if they read this.”

I’ve seen similar distortions in 200 page EPA reports where the executive summary (the only thing anyone reads) draws one conclusion but the data in the rest of the document supports the opposite conclusion.

30
posted on 11/15/2011 1:33:06 PM PST
by Hacklehead
(The goal of political correctness is to hide the truth.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.